H.P. STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs NISHA RAJ

BEING aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, Bilaspur, dated 18.5.1996, the appellant H.P. State Co-operative Bank (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party) has filed this appeal. The opposite party has been directed to remove the deficiency in service by paying to the complainant Rs. 25,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of withdrawal i.e. 3.7.1995 till actual payment.

THE substance of the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint is that she had a Saving Bank Account with the opposite party and that on 3.7.1995, a sum of Rs. 25,000/-was withdrawn from her account by somebody although the complainant had never withdrawn this amount from the Bank on that date. There is no dispute that this amount of Rs. 25,000/-on 3.7.1995 was not withdrawn by the complainant but by somebody else. The complainant as such has been constrained to file the complaint on this account against the opposite party to make payment of Rs. 25,000/-alongwith interest etc.

Mr. Naresh Kumar Thakur, learned Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently submitted that there was conspiracy of the complainant through her brother and cousins who have been operating her account and have withdrawn the amount and have committed fraud upon the Bank-the opposite party. In so far as the opposite party is concerned, they have lodged the FIR in the police station and a case in fact has been instituted against Rajesh, Rakesh and Nirmala and the complainant here self under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B, IPC and the challan has been put up before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and is pending trial.

WHATEVER be the position, the fact remains that the case is pending trial at this stage and we are unable to know the final outcome of the case and it cannot be said at this stage whether the complainant and her relations have committed fraud upon the Bank as the matter has yet to be decided by the Competent Court. At any rate, the question requires to be decided in the present appeal is whether the opposite party has been negligent in the performance of its duty and whether or not there is deficiency in service. The District Forum has rightly observed that it is not the case of the opposite party that the document (cheque or withdrawal form) against which the amount of Rs. 25,000/-had been withdrawn was signed by the complainant or that the signature on such a document appeared to be similar to that of the complainant and because of that the employees of the opposite party were deceived. No case as such at all has been set up. On the other hand, the case of the opposite party is, however, that the complainant and her relations had been operating her account and they have committed fraud upon the Bank in conspiracy with each other. We can understand had the signatures on the document or the cheque appears to have been similar to that of the complainant and that the opposite party thereby was misled, it could have been said that there was no negligence/deficiency on the part of the opposite party. We have been shown the cheque as well as the specimen signatures of the complainant by the learned Counsel for the opposite party and we do not find exact similarity between the two signatures. The District Forum has also examined this matter and has come to the similar conclusion that the document against which the money was withdrawn apparently does not bear the genuine signature of the complainant. We do not find any error in such findings.

MR. Naresh Kumar Thakur/learned Counsel for the opposite party has heavily relied upon the judgment of the National Commission, First Appeal No. 13 of 1992, United Commercial Bank v. Mahendra Popatlal Vora, decided on 15.11.1994 11- I (1995) CPJ 83 (NC)=1995 (1) CPR 242. This case is distinguishable as in that case the Bank did not see any reason to doubt the genuineness of a cheque to clear it as there was pictorial identity and close resemblance of signatures and made payment in good faith. In such a situation, the Bank was not held liable for deficiency of service. '''' Another authority of the Assam State Commission relied upon by the learned Counsel is Ram Chandra Chaudhary v. State Bank of India, III (1994) CPJ 46=1994 (3) CPR 488. is distinguishable as the signatures in that case could not be detected to be forged by the Bank. In view of what is discussed above, there is no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.